A few weeks ago I pointed out the lack of a good reason to believe the scary predictions of climate models. Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and a million other public figures say we should believe what the models predict about global temperature ten years from now. Yet, as far as I know, the models have never made accurate and surprising predictions of global temperature. They are claimed to do what they have never been shown to do. In contrast to the absence of accurate predictions of global temperature is the presence of wrong predictions.
The lack of persuasive predictions is clearest when experts who believe climate models fail to supply them. This is why I linked to a warmist web page with a wealth of “supporting” information. Surely its creator had studied the issue deeply. This is why I noted that the Science Editor of The Independent, a major English newspaper, failed to supply such evidence. Surely he had read a lot about the issue.
And this is why I note that a graduate student in atmospheric science has failed to supply such evidence. On my Psychology Today blog I reposted one of my earlier posts about this. The graduate student said I was “misinformed about the nature of climate models” and that he “could go on for pages” about why. But he too failed to supply an example of an accurate surprising global-temperature prediction. (For an inaccurate prediction of a 1986 model, see here.)
I didn’t even know that Seth had a Psychology Today blog. It’s here:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/personal-science
I agree 100%, but I would add two points:
First, you don’t even have to note the lack of accurate predictions to be skeptical of these climate simulations. Because climatologists don’t understand things like what caused the Little Ice Age or what caused global surface temperatures to rise from 1890 to 1950. If there are important mechanisms which (1) are capable of significantly changing global surface temperatures; and (2) are not understood, then it’s obviously an extremely difficult task to model and predict global surface temperatures.
Second, your example illustrates the warmist mentality. The fact that most warmist researchers have not condemned Hansen is further evidence that they have a war mentality about this controversy. That they cannot be trusted to play fair.
I live in Minnesota, USA. 12,000 years ago the land where my house stands was under a half mile thick ice sheet. There must have been extreme global warming to melt that much ice. Did/do the models predict that outcome? Can the climate change believers explain what cause the last ice age to end?
Nile, I don’t think the models go back that far.
Sabril, you make a good point about Hansen. The saying is: lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. I wouldn’t/don’t expect any climate researcher to “condemn” Hansen because it would be a terrible career move. But I wonder if letting his extremism (absurd faith in his models) go unpunished encouraged other extremism, such as Michael Mann’s. The whole profession wakes up with fleas.
How do other disciplines (eg psychology, economics, political science) compare to climate science in supplying models that can predict the long-term future accurately?
Brad, a book called The Predictioneer’s Game
https://www.amazon.com/Predictioneers-Game-Brazen-Self-Interest-Future/dp/081297977X/
is about social science predictions.
” I wouldn’t/don’t expect any climate researcher to ‘condemn’ Hansen because it would be a terrible career move”
Probably so, but the fact that even tenured professors are reluctant to publicly call out Hansen for his shenanigans doesn’t say much for climate science as a field.
It’s really a shame that Richard Feynman isn’t around anymore. He would have had no problem calling BS.
Thanks Seth. I really enjoy the blog by the way – it’s been a big help with understanding issues in statistics and data analysis.
“It’s a shame Richard Feynman isn’t around any more.” Yeah, that is a strange aspect of this — that more top scientists don’t join Freeman Dyson.
Well 99% of people will go along with the dominant view. Richard Feynman was a unique man – brilliant and absolutely unafraid to disagree with anyone. If God himself had spoken to Feynman, Feynman would not have been afraid to contradict Him.
They say that during the Manhattan project, Oppenheimer preferred to discuss ideas with Feynman because Feynman was not afraid to contradict his superiors.
Anyway, part of the problem is the way that people become scientists. I suppose you would know more about this than me, but I think that to make it through graduate school, post-docs, the tenure process, get funding, get published, etc., arguably the most important thing is to please the people above you. Particularly if you are not brilliant.
“Yet, AS FAR AS I KNOW, the models have never made accurate and surprising predictions of global temperature.”
You either are too lazy to avail yourself of the mountain of evidence and the increasingly accurate predictions made by climate scientists or you simply like lying to yourself.
drewski, thanks for a new example of my point — that the supporters of the models make the best arguments against them (unwittingly). You mention “the mountain of evidence” and “increasingly accurate predictions”. The only evidence that matters is accurate predictions (not “increasingly accurate”). Your statement implies that as far as you know, accurate predictions are rare or non-existent. Because you seem to know more about this than I do, coming from you such a statement is more persuasive than when it comes from me.
Maybe drewski can put some facts behind his words and provide some evidence?
Should be easy enough for him if there really are mountains of it.
But probably it’s just hot air with not a single fact behind them. Sadly.